Friday, May 05, 2006

No thanks, I prefer to say galoshes.

Happened upon an article in the campus newspaper of the largest, supposedly Catholic University in the area. You know the place: where Dan Maguire and Fr. Bryan Massingale pass on their skewed version of the faith with the approbation and support of all your alumni donations!

A couple of things in the article are very telling. Certainly young Mr. Boesson, the "reporter" has learned Jesuitic thinking rather well and it likely destined to follow Cardinal Martini right into whatever moral contradiction he plans to go.

For the insights that Mr. Boessan's journalistic pre-determined goal needed to reach, he did not go to a moral theologian (but, I would think that Fr. Massingale would be well ready to discuss the pros and cons of various condom brands), a classical theologian (wasn't Maguire happily married once?), or a medical professional. No he wanted to place the exploration of this subject purely in the realm of journalistic in-breeding. He went to a journalism professor.

Professor William Thorn states for us that "I suspect they will change their (current) policy to a more moderate one." And Dr. Thorn, what journalistic tenets, what scholarly research, what professional edification provides support for this suspicion? Hey Joe, ask your headline writer to try something more accurate: "Journalists Want Change in Policy Therefore We Write About It!"

The amazing thing, and maybe the underlying motive in Mr. Boessan's maddening method is that Dr. Thorn carries the credibility of name from his wife, Vicki Thorn who is one of the staunchest allies of pro-life and theology of the body issues. It is like all of those opinions and rumors that get reported from famous peoples brothers, cousins and gardeners. Thank you Marquette School of Journalism, if you don't like the news...just interview one another and change it!

Now (sadly giving in to a side of me that I will have to bring to confession) does Dr. Thorn think that his argument is really furthered by this paragraph:

"The Executive Committee of U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops debated the use of condoms with homosexuals," Thorn said. "They were reminded by (retired Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland) that contraception did not apply to homosexuals because their is no transfer of life." Weakland was archbishop of Milwaukee from 1977 to 2002.

Do any of us really want to take a whole lot of guidance from Archbishop Weakland on matters homosexual? From the man who gave the original permissions of the first Brokeback Rectories? Did he send that message in from Nantucket? Oh, the Christo-drama of it all.

So, the thrust of the article seems to be, even when it comes to activities that are themselves objectively disordered and immoral, the Church should be guided by someone else's political agenda to push it down the splippery slope. Next week the Tavern League will encourage the Church members to be sure and buckle up when they drink and drive...it must be the moral thing to do.

OK, so I can see why a college-aged, liberal reporter wannabe might do this. I accept, grudgingly, the environment that Fr. Wild's Marquette does to foster this. I can even concede that Dr. Thorn might have been duped by all the glamour of being interviewed and quoted in a campus newspaper. But explain to me this one:

Kathleen Hohl, communications director for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, declined to comment on the issue, saying the Archdiocese will wait until the Vatican releases a document to respond.

Excuse me, Madam Hohl, I do not see the need for equivocation. What are you and, presumably, the Archbishop waiting for? Allow me to assist you in your job: according to the Catholic News Agency the "Church will not budge 'one inch' on issue of condom use, says Cardinal Lopez Trujillo."

Journalism -- strike one; Marquette University -- strike two; the Archdiocese of Milwaukee -- strike three. Thank you all for letting us get pushed a little farther down the slippery slope.

4 Comments:

The Troubles in Milwaukee began with Abp. Cousins. While Abp. Weakland was certainly an enabler (at the least) and made a number of highly questionable decisions in importing priest-personnel from other Dioceses around the county, and allowed several significant problems to develop, and is arguably one of the more insouciant antinomians in the history of Milwaukee...

Relative to the Cousins - Weakland shares of responsibility: While I never met Archbishop Cousins, from all that I have heard, it can be said that he was a nice man who lost control very quickly, but might not have had the progressivist (read as rebellious) agenda of some of his priests. Archbishop Weakland on the other hand had an agenda, and sought to further it with very clear, active steps in policy and personnel.